How do leadership responses differ during a crisis: comparing the United Kingdom and Singapore on key dimensions of leadership, during crisis management

(1)

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

Master Thesis Public Administration

How do leadership responses differ during a crisis: comparing

the United Kingdom and Singapore on key dimensions of

leadership, during crisis management.

Name: Shalene Datta Student Number: s2690403 Supervisor: Dr. Kohei Suzuki

(2)

Abstract

Leadership during a crisis has been studied mainly in the context of organisational crisis (Zhang et al, 2012; Cho and Tseng 2009; Pillai, 2013; Carmeli, and Schaubroeck, 2008; Muffet-Willett and Kruse, 2009; Taneja et al, 2010; Bosch et al, 2016). It has been studied to a much smaller degree in relation to extreme crisis (Blight et al, 2004; Davis and Gardner, 2012; Kapucu and Van Wart 2006; Kapucu and Van Wart, 2008; Boin et al, 2010; Boin et al, 2016) and to an even lesser extent in regards to health crisis (Khan, 2009). Majority of existing literature has focused on leadership during a crisis within a democratic context. Moreover, only two articles have focused on leadership during crises, within authoritarian regimes (Zhang et al, 2012; Cho and Tseng, 2009). This paper aims to fill this research gap, by comparing the leadership responses of the United Kingdom and Singapore during the corona virus crisis. The theoretical framework which was applied, is Boin et al’s (2016) five strategic leadership tasks. These tasks include “sense making”, “decision making and coordinating”, “meaning making”, “accounting” and “learning” (Boin et al, 2016, p15). This theory was chosen as it encompasses several leadership tasks in a concise framework.

This research paper contributes to the existing literature, as to the best knowledge of the researcher; Boin et al’s (2016) theory has never before been tested empirically. It contributes even further by also applying Boin’s theory within a non- democratic context. The results of this research highlight, that although Singapore and the United Kingdom have differing bureaucratic features, the prevalence of leadership tasks is similar during a crisis. The leadership task of meaning making was most prevalent in both countries and the task of sense making was least prevalent in both countries. This finding validates the applicability of Boin et al’s leadership theory, and implies that his theory may also be applicable within non-democratic contexts. Therefore, the key findings of this research suggest that leadership tasks do not differ significantly during a crisis, despite bureaucratic and contextual differences. This is an important finding for leaders who want to improve their response strategies during a crisis.

Key words: Crisis, Crisis management, Leadership, COVID-19, Corona virus, Health Crisis

(3)

Chapter 5 Conclusion ... 45 5.1 Limitations ... 47 5.2 Future research ... 47 Bibliography ... 49 Appendix A Typology of Kapucu and Van Wart - 2006 ... 57 Appendix B Typology of Kapucu and Van Wart - 2008 ... 58 Appendix C Polity Data Series ... 60 Appendix D: Examples of lack of freedom in Singapore ... 61 Appendix E: Coding of speeches for the United Kingdom ... 62

Appendix F: Coding of speeches for Singapore ... 140

(4)

1.1 Chapter 1 Introduction

Crises are on the rise globally. Nations today are facing a wide range of unexpected events, which arrive in several different forms. Crisis can include, but are not limited to, incidents such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, water shortages, illegal migrant flows, climate change, and health pandemics (Boin and Rhinard, 2008). They are “unforeseen situations usually classified as disasters, catastrophes, threats or urgencies” (Demiroz and Kapucu, 2012, p93). Therefore, they test the resilience of both leaders and their societies (Boin et al, 2008).

Leadership during a crisis is challenging to say the least. Leaders play a crucial role throughout a crisis, with society looking up to their leaders. Post crisis, leaders have often been heavily scrutinized for their ineffective actions and tasks. This on occasion results in termination of their leadership, due to perceived failures by the electorate. To prevent such scrutiny, leaders must effectively and efficiently implement leadership tasks to address these complex situations (Boin et al, 2008). Theorists have suggested several varying competencies. These competencies can be implemented in three distinct phases of a crisis, pre, during and post crisis, for effective leadership to take place (Blight et al, 2004; Davis and Gardner, 2012; Kapucu and Van Wart 2006; and Kapucu and Van Wart, 2008; Boin et al, 2010; Boin et al, 2016).

Therefore, this thesis aims to explore how leadership responses differ during a crisis, comparing the cases of the United Kingdom and Singapore, on key dimensions of leadership during crisis management.

This thesis will test Boin et al’s (2016) leadership theory, exploring how leadership differs during the corona virus crisis in both Singapore and the United Kingdom. This thesis will be explanatory and deductive, using qualitative research methods. The research will consist of a small-N research design, applying most similar systems design to analyse cases (Toshkov, 2016). The cases of the United Kingdom and Singapore have been selected, as both countries have several similarities such as economies, healthcare and welfare systems. However, they also have distinct differences, most notably in their bureaucratic features, such as recruitment systems,

(5)

electoral processes and freedoms. This allows for comparison of both countries leadership styles, controlling for a number of relatively large factors. The results of this research will provide insight, on the applicability of leadership theory, in both democratic and non-democratic contexts.

The theoretical basis for the analysis within this paper, shall be Boin et al’s (2016) five strategic leadership tasks. These tasks include “ sense making”, “decision making and coordinating”, “meaning making”, “accounting” and “learning” (Boin et al, 2016, p15). This particular framework has been chosen as it incorporates a multidisciplinary approach to crisis management, using elements from various fields (Malesic, 2007). Moreover, Boin’s theory also considers a variety of tasks across the entire time frame of the crisis, rather than one specific task during one stage of the crisis Boin et al, 2016). It encompasses several leadership tasks in a concise framework.

For the purposes of this thesis, a new typology based on Boin’s theory has been created to analyse leadership tasks in Singapore and the United Kingdom during the corona virus crisis. This typology consists of three of Boin’s five tasks: sense making, decision making and coordinating and meaning making. These tasks were chosen, as the corona virus crisis was still ongoing whilst this thesis was written. This meant that the researcher could not apply the tasks of accounting and learning, which were in relation to the end of the crisis. The typology created, will be applied to speeches by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Singapore on the corona virus crisis from February 2020 to April 2020. This timeframe was chosen as both countries Prime Ministers began addressing the corona crisis in February.

The results of this research paper validate Boin’ et al’s leadership theory. This is because his theory was applicable, and leadership responses were similar between Singapore and the United Kingdom during the corona virus crisis. All three leadership tasks appeared in both countries. However, the most prevalent task was meaning making in both countries and the least prevalent task was sense making in both countries. This highlights a key finding, that leadership responses do not differ significantly between democratic and non- democratic contexts during a crisis

(6)

situation. This finding contributes to the development of existing theory, as it implies Boin’s theory is applicable during a crisis, but goes further in implying that leadership tasks may not differ as significantly as scholars perceive between democratic and non-democratic countries during a health crisis.

The crisis that will be analysed within this thesis is that of the corona virus. The corona virus is an ongoing health crisis, which was first reported in December 2019 in Wuhan China (WHO, 2020). Worldwide, the virus has caused 117021 deaths, 1844863 people have been infected and 213 countries have suffered cases (WHO, 2020). The outbreak was declared a pandemic by the WHO (2020) on 11 March 2020. By the end of January, a month into the pandemic, the virus had spread rapidly and 20 countries had their first confirmed cases, spreading across countries in Asia, the USA, Canada and parts of Europe (WHO, 2020).

Both Singapore and the United Kingdom have been significantly impacted by the Corona Virus, however their responses have been very different, making them interesting cases to study. The first reported case of the corona virus in the United Kingdom was on the 29th of February (BBC, 2020). The United Kingdom, were criticized internationally for having an incredibly slow response to the corona virus crisis (Cookson and Mancini, 2020 and Cooper and Furlong, 2020). They began by implementing herd immunity theory (Boseley, 2020), and in late March went into lockdown with several restrictions (United Kingdom Government, 2020). The United Kingdom did not have enough medical equipment or tests, so they advised citizens to stay at home and self isolate if they began to show symptoms, tests were in place for only those who most needed them (BBC, 2020).

This can be compared to Singapore, who confirmed their first corona virus case on January 23 (WHO, 2020). Singapore was amongst the first few countries to contract the virus. The international community praised the way in which the country implemented a quick response and were able to contain the virus (Strait Times, 2020). Due to their previous experience with SARS, they had rehearsed strategies in place. These strategies were implemented efficiently and consisted of strict measures, with equally strict repercussions for non-compliance (World Economic Forum, 2020). The country had a rigorous testing policy, with enough tests in place; moreover they

(7)

implemented a tracing system for those with the disease (Strait Times, 2020). Although Singapore successfully handled the first wave of the virus, they experienced a second wave in late April/early May, which they have found increasingly difficult to control (Strait Times, 2020).

This thesis aims to test Boin et al’s (2016) leadership theory. It will begin by describing the bureaucratic context within both Singapore and the United Kingdom and overviewing existing literature on leadership tasks during a crisis. Consequently it will merge bureaucratic features and theoretical frameworks to derive hypothesis in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 will discuss research methods, including elements such as case selection, method of data collection, method of analysis and the validity of the research. Furthermore, Chapter 4 will overview and analyse the results of the research, highlighting the categories of sense making, decision making and coordinating and meaning making. Finally Chapter 6 will conclude, underlining limitations and future research.

1.1 Research objective and contribution

Majority of the literature available on leadership during crisis is focused on American examples. Moreover, the type of crisis usually analysed is that of natural disasters or terrorism (Blight et al, 2004; Davis and Gardner, 2012; Kapucu and Van Wart, 2006; Kapucu and Van Wart, 2008). There are only a few social scientists that have explored leadership during health crisis (Khan, 2009). Moreover, majority of existing literature studies leadership during crisis within a democratic context. There is very limited existing literature, which examines this question within a non- democratic context (Zhang et al , 2012; Cho and Tseng, 2009). Therefore this paper aims to fill this existing gap in literature, by exploring how leadership tasks differ between Singapore and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, to the best knowledge of the researcher, Boin et al’s leadership theory has never been empirically tested. This identifies a further gap in scientific research, which this paper intends to fill. It is important to note, that near the end of this thesis, literature on leadership during the corona virus crisis started accumulating at a fast pace. This literature covered topics such as academic leadership (Gedro et al, 2020; Fernandez et al, 2020) and public health leadership (Halawi et al, 2020) during the crisis.

(8)

Moreover, the societal relevance of this paper is evident, as leadership affects policy outcomes, not just during a crisis but also in general conditions. Therefore the effect of leadership is incredibly significant, as society benefits from effective or bad leadership, so its social impact is large. This significance is most visible with leaders such as Donald Trump, whose policy decisions are visibly impacting American society. An example of this would be his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, impacting the countries international relationships and responsibilities. Finally, this thesis will also help leaders to understand the importance of specific leadership tasks during a crisis. This could help a leader manage a crisis much more effectively and perhaps reduce the impact of the crisis on citizens.

(9)

Chapter 2 Literature Review

This section reviews literature on leadership during crisis management. The section begins with a comparison of the bureaucratic features of both Singapore and the United Kingdom. This comparison is necessary, as it is important to understand the context under which both leaders are functioning. This context later helps to explain the theoretical framework, indicating the presence or absence of specific leadership tasks. The second part of this section, reviews exiting literature on leadership tasks/typologies. The final part of this section reviews literature on three of Boin et al’s (2016) five leadership tasks, clearly defining each task. These include the tasks of sense making, decision making and coordinating and meaning making. Consequently, it incorporates the bureaucratic features discussed in Chapter 2.1 and concludes with hypothesis based on the bureaucratic differences and theoretical framework.

2.1 Comparison of bureaucratic features

In this section, the bureaucratic features of Singapore and the United Kingdom will be compared. This comparison will focus on macro factors, such as the political and administrative relationship, various freedoms and the recruitment systems of both countries. This comparison will be made to understand the context within which leaders are functioning. Thi will help explain the theoretical framework and proposed hypothesis in the section below.

2.1.1. Political and administrative relationship

At first glance, both the United Kingdom and Singapore are democracies (EIU, 2020) and share several similar characteristics. These include indicators such as the economy, healthcare systems and development of both countries. Table 1, compares the similarities of both of these countries. These similarities allow for the comparison of leadership style, controlling for relatively large factors.

(10)

Table 1: Comparison of similarities between Singapore and United Kingdom on various indicators

Singapore United Kingdom

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita

64582 42944

Gross National Income (GNI) per capita

58.770 41.770

Life expectancy 83.146 81.356 Employment to

population ratio (% ages 15 and older)

59.9 65.7

Expected years of schooling

17.4 16.3

Skilled labor force 65.9 83.6

(World Bank, 2020)

Despite these similarities there are also several key differences. The United Kingdom is a competitive multiparty democracy (Polity IV country report, 2010). There are two major parties, the Labour Party (centre left) and the Conservative Party (centre right) with smaller parties participating at national and regional levels (Scotland, Wales and Ireland). Elections are free and fair (Polity IV country report, 2010) and parties are able to campaign and share their manifestos openly (EIU, 2020). The Prime Minister is elected through a competitive multiparty political system and the Members of the House of Commons are popularly elected (Polity IV country report, 2010). The Prime Minister is elected by and directly accountable to the legislature (Polity IV

(11)

country report, 2010). Freedom of speech and assembly are constitutionally protected and the civil rights of citizens are respected (Polity IV country report, 2010).

This can be compared to Singapore, which gained its independence in 1965 (Polity 5 report, 2018). Although elections are considered to be free in Singapore (EIU, 2020), the country has been under one party rule by the Peoples Action Party (PAP) since its independence (Bellows, 2009). The party has managed to block the rise of any opposition, as mechanisms have been put in place to unfairly disadvantage opposing parties (Polity 5 country report, 2018). Moreover the elections department is not independent from the executive branch, resulting in PAP using electoral institutions to their own advantage (Polity 5 country report, 2018). Opposition parties have only managed to gain 5% of seats in any election since independence, despite winning as much as a third of the votes cast (Polity 5 country report, 2018). Therefore it is evident that there is an overall lack of transparency within the electoral system (Mutalib, 2000).

Freedom of expression is an essential requirement for a democracy. Therefore it is also interesting to compare freedoms between Singapore and the United Kingdom. This is to understand the presence of specific leadership behaviors. In 2020, the World Press Freedom Index, by Reporters Without Borders, reported Singapore to rank 158 out of 180 countries in press freedoms. This can be compared to the United Kingdom, which ranked 35 out of 180 countries (Reporters Without Borders, 2020). The PAP government controls the media in Singapore; any press outlet that speaks against the ruling party or the PM is punished (Han, 2019). There have been incidents of news outlets being sued, made redundant or having been forced to leave the country (Han, 2019). Defamation suits are common, alongside emails threatening journalists with imprisonment if they fail to remove offensive articles (Han, 2019). Moreover, the Media Development Authority has the power to censor all forms of journalistic content (Reporters Without Borders, 2020). Independent reporting against the government is feared, resulting in self- censorship across the country. Further information is provided in Appendix D.

Furthermore, it is interesting to consider the Polity Data Series, which measures the level of democracy for majority of countries worldwide, with a population greater

(12)

than 500,000 (Polity 5, 2020). A score of +10 implies a strong democracy compared to -10, which is strongly autocratic (polity 5, 2020). The most recent polity measurements were in 2018, where Singapore scored 2 for institutionalized democracy, 4 for institutionalized autocracy resulting in a score of -2 polity. This can be compared to the United Kingdom, which scored 8 for democracy 0 for autocracy resulting in a polity score of +8 (polity 5, 2020). This highlights that Singapore has several autocratic features compared to the United Kingdom, which is a strong democracy. Further information about the Polity Data Series can be found in Appendix C. Moreover, the governance indicators of the World Bank further highlight that freedom, impartiality and legitimacy of Singapore compared to the United Kingdom. These 5 indicators measure the quality of the government on a number of variables in 180 countries across the world (World Bank, 2020). Indicators include voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence/terrorism, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law and control of corruption (World Bank, 2020).

Figure 1: Governance Indicators of the World Bank for Singapore and the United Kingdom, 2020

(World Bank, 2020)

Figure 1 highlights that the indicators for control of corruption, rule of law and regulatory quality all have very small differences between Singapore and the United Kingdom. However, the indicator of voice and accountability has the largest disparity when comparing the two countries. This category measures “the extent to which a

(13)

country's citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media” (World Bank, 2020). This category is comprised of indicators referring to freedoms, accountability and reliability. As is visible in Figure 1 , in 2008 Singapore ranked 45% compared to the United Kingdom, which ranked 98% in this category (World Bank, 2020). This highlights that Singapore is considerably behind on this indicator. The second largest disparity, is in the category of political stability and absence of violence/terrorism. This disparity is present, due to the occurrence of terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom in 2008 (BBC, 2008) , compared to no terrorist attacks in Singapore in the same year.

Table 2: Table comparing bureaucratic differences between Singapore and the United Kingdom

Indicator Singapore United Kingdom

Type of democracy One party system , ruling party PAP has been in power since independence

Multi – party system

Press Freedom score ( by Reporters without borders)

Press is censored Press is uncensored

Press Freedom Score ( Reporters without borders)

158/180 35/180

Recruitment system Meritocratic

(closed Mandarin system)

Meritocratic (open system)

Polity Score -2 +8

The employment systems of bureaucracies are another feature, which can help to explain leadership behaviors. Both Singapore and the United Kingdom have

(14)

meritocratic recruitment systems. This means “the existence of competitive formal examinations and the possession of university degrees, among the employees of core economic agencies” (Rauch and Evans, 2000). However, the difference between these two countries is that Singapore has a closed “Mandarin recruitment system” and the UK has an open recruitment system. The Mandarin system is a “hierarchical system with entry limited to promising candidates at the outset of their careers” (Chibber, 1997, p94). Recruitment is centralized and selective, through formalized civil service entry examinations and normally when accepted, applicants are in their posting for life,(Dahlstrom et al, 2010). This can be compared to the United Kingdom, which has an open recruitment system, which is “flexible, decentralized and market-driven” (Chibber, 1997, p94). Applicants can enter at any point of the hierarchical system without age restrictions (Chibber, 1997). Entrance examinations are profession specific, and managers have increased autonomy in hiring (Chibber, 1997).

Singapore and the United Kingdom have several similarities, across indicators such as the economy, healthcare and development as highlighted in Figure 1 . However, the two countries also have key differences in their bureaucratic features, as highlighted in Figure 2. The United Kingdom is a democracy, operating under a multi party system with uncensored press freedom and an open meritocratic recruitment system. This can be compared to Singapore, which although categorizes itself as a democracy, has features which fall in line with authoritarian regimes. These include a one party system, censored press and a closed meritocratic recruitment system. These bureaucratic differences are important when considering leadership behavior, as Singapore is lacking in key democratic features such as legitimacy, accountability and public scrutiny, compared to the United Kingdom. These can in turn affect the leadership tasks, which are displayed. The differences between these two systems and the leadership tasks of sense making, decision making and coordinating and meaning making will be further discussed in the literature review below.

2.2 Literature review of existing typologies exploring leadership during crisis management

This section aims to review the existing literature on leadership during crisis. It will contrast existing typologies of leadership tasks during a crisis. Second, it will review literature on Boin et al’s three leadership tasks of sense making, decision making and

(15)

coordinating and meaning making. Finally, Boin’s leadership tasks will be merged with the bureaucratic features mentioned in this section to derive hypothesis. To the best knowledge of the researcher there are no previous studies and no existing literature that systematically or comprehensively applies Boin’s theoretical framework. Therefore the researcher has tried to broaden the search criteria within this thesis. This has been done to find existing theories, which match with Boin’s leadership tasks and their possible outcomes for both Singapore and the United Kingdom.

Whilst leadership during crisis management has been explored thoroughly by academics in the context of organisational crisis (Zhang et al, 2012; Cho and Tseng 2009; Pillai, 2013; Carmeli, and Schaubroeck, 2008; Muffet-Willett and Kruse, 2009; Taneja et al, 2010; Bosch et al, 2016), the issue is covered to a much lesser extent when considering leadership during extreme crisis events. Within the literature available a large proportion of the literature does highlight that leadership makes a difference under conditions of crisis (Blight et al, 2004; Davis and Gardner, 2012; , Kapucu and Van Wart,2006; and Kapucu and Van Wart ,2008; Boin et al, 2010; Boin et al 2016). Several typologies have been suggested by authors, these vary in the type of tasks and the point of the crisis at which they are implemented (Blight et al, 2004; Davis and Gardner, 2012; Kapucu and Van Wart, 2006; Kapucu and Van Wart ,2008; Boin et al, 2010; Boin et al, 2016). Moreover, majority of the crisis analysed are in America (Blight et al, 2004; Davis and Gardner, 201; Kapucu and Van Wart ,2006; and Kapucu and Van Wart ,2008; Boin et al, 2010). There is very little available literature on leadership during extreme crisis events outside of America . Additionally, the type of crisis analysed is usually in the form of natural disasters or terrorism (Blight et al, 2004, Davis and Gardner, 2012, Kapucu and Van Wart, 2006 and Kapucu and Van Wart ,2008, Boin et al, 2010) with very limited literature on leadership during a health crisis (Khan, 2009) or the corona virus crisis. However, near the completion of this thesis, articles on the corona virus and articles on leadership during the corona virus crisis started to emerge. This literature has not been included within this review, as these articles came to light very close to the deadline of this thesis. However, the literature covered topics such as academic leadership (Gedro et al, 2020, Fernandez et al, 2020) and public health leadership ( Halawi et al, 2020) during the corona crisis. To the best knowledge of the researcher Boin et al’s (

(16)

2016) leadership theory had still not been empirically tested.

This thesis uses the theoretical framework of Boin et al’s (2016) leadership theory, which comprises of five strategic leadership tasks. When these tasks are implemented correctly, they result in effective leadership during a crisis. These tasks include “sense making (collecting and processing information that will help crisis managers to detect an emerging crisis and understand the significance of what is going on during a crisis). Decision making and coordinating, (making crucial calls on strategic dilemmas and orchestrating coherent response to implement those decisions). Meaning making, (offering a situational definition and narrative that is convincing, helpful and inspiring to citizens and responders). Accounting (explaining in a public forum what was done to prevent and manage the crisis and why) and learning (determining the causes of a crisis, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the responses to it and undertaking remedial action based on this understanding)”(Boin et al, 2016, p15).

This theory was chosen, as it presents a multidisciplinary approach to crisis management, incorporating elements from sociology, psychology, international relations, public administration, public policy and organisational theory (Malesic, 2007). This is in contrast to other papers which are based mainly on a cognitive institutional approach, (Hansen, 2003; Bradstorm and Malesic, 2004; Bos, 2003) where authors have analysed crisis management in particular institutional contexts. However, they do not provide generalizations that can be applicable to situations outside of the context analysed (Malesic, p265). Moreover, Boin et al ( 2016) use a wide breadth of examples to support the typology which they are proposing. These range from European to American examples, this is in comparison to several authors who focus on only one country or one case (Blight et al, 2004; Davis and Gardner, 2012; Kapucu and Van Wart, 2006; and Kapucu and Van Wart, 2008). Furthermore, it is important to note that Boin et al specify that their theory is only applicable within a democratic context (Boin et al, 2016). Moreover, all the literature reviewed within this thesis, have used examples of crisis within democratic countries, apart from Zhang et al (2012) who focus on China and Hermann and Sakiev (2011) who focus on the leadership behavior of Al Qaeda in Iraq. This may be because leadership tasks are more challenging to analyse in a non – democratic context, as democracy and transparency often work simultaneously.

(17)

Three distinct phases of crisis, seem to be prevalent within the literature analysed. Boin et al’s ( 2016) framework was choosen for this thesis, as it encompasses all three of these stages, these include pre crisis, mid crisis and post crisis. This can be compared to Kapucu and Van Wart (2006) and Kapucu and Van Wart (2008) and Helsloot and Groenendaal (2010), who all focus on the beginning or middle stage of the crisis, whilst Boin et al (2010) also focus on the end stage of a crisis. To the best of the researchers knowledge, none of the typologies in existing literature incorporated all three stages of a crisis except for Boin et al (2016) and Boin et al (2010).

Finally, the literature reviewed has a wide spectrum of tasks, which are mentioned throughout, with big differences in the number of tasks per typology. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the tasks mentioned, Kapuca and Van Wart (2006) mention 3 tasks “adapting and expanding capacity, restoring communication, implementing flexible decision-making and expanding coordination and goodwill” (Kapucu and Van Wart, 2006, p297), a table explaining these competencies is available in appendix A. Kapucu and Van Wart (2008) include 12 tasks “decisiveness, flexibility, informing, problem solving, managing innovation and creativity, planning and organizing personnel, motivating, scanning the environment, strategic planning, networking and partnering and decision making (Kapuca and Van Wart, 2008, p8).” A table highlighting these competencies is available in Appendix B. Boin et al’s (2013) framework includes 10 executive tasks “early recognition, sense making, making critical decisions, orchestrating vertical and horizontal coordination, coupling and decoupling, meaning making, communication, rendering accountability and learning and enhancing resilience” (p82). Boin et al’s (2016) leadership during crisis theory was chosen as it is a simplified framework which can still encompasses all the relevant and important leadership tasks.

2.3 Boin et al’s leadership tasks, bureaucratic context and derived hypothesis This section will review and define Boin et al’s (2016) three leadership tasks of sense making, decision making and coordinating and meaning making. To the best knowledge of the researcher, there are no previous studies and no existing literature that systematically or comprehensively explain the theoretical framework of Boin et al’s (2016) leadership theory. Moreover, there are also no previous studies explaining

(18)

mechanisms between leadership style and country characteristics. Therefore, to explain and understand the tasks of sense making, decision making and coordinating and meaning making, the researcher has broadened the search criteria to relevant literature within the field and tried to make a match. Furthermore, this section will bring in the country characteristics overviewed above and then draw hypothesis based on the theoretical framework and country characteristics mentioned in the previous sections.

2.3.1 Boin et al’s leadership task of sensemaking

The concept of sense making is defined by Boin et al (2016) as “collecting and processing information that will help crisis managers to detect an emerging crisis and understand the significance of what is going on during a crisis” (p15). In simpler terms, sense making is understood as the warning signals before a crisis hits. This means leaders should listen to predictions, and act on information, instead of waiting for the consequences of the crisis (Boin et al, 2016). Moreover, an effective leader should have a rehearsed method in place to process and share information. Boin et al go further in explaining, that although sense making is an important leadership task “ it is virtually impossible to predict with precision where and when a crisis will strike”(p20). Therefore, to effectively implement sense making, “governments must consider the signals and weigh the evidence, as most warnings do not speak for themselves” (p26). This makes sense making a difficult leadership task for a prime minister to successfully implement, as he must continuously make judgment calls. Therefore it could generally be expected, that sense making will appear to a lesser extent within the speeches analysed.

Within the typologies analysed above, the task of sense making does not appear strongly. Therefore, this review has been broadened to include the concept of anticipatory leadership, to gain a broader understanding of sense making. Savage and Sales (2008) define anticipatory leadership as “effective leaders who position their organisation in anticipation of change” (p28). Within anticipatory leadership, they explain three key traits. These include, “futurist (a leader who informs themselves about a wide range of current events and trends from various sources), strategist (a leader who works on their understanding of the opportunities and threats these shifts present) and integrators (a leader who engages in dialogue internally, identifying

(19)

opportunities and aligning resources”(p29). Moreover, Ashley and Morrison, mention anticipatory management tools, they discuss the “Anticipatory Decision Process Model, which focuses on uncovering emerging issues before the happen, evaluating how serious these issues are and the impact that they may have” (Ashley and Morrison, 1997, p35). Moreover, they draw upon the importance of “outside- in” thinking skills, which concern the task of relating information regarding “developments in the external world to what is going on internally” (p1).

Alongside this, it is also important to consider the bureaucratic features that were overviewed in Chapter 2.1. These features, alongside anticipatory leadership theory, can help to explain the prevalence of sense making within the United Kingdom and Singapore. As was mentioned in Chapter 2.1, Singapore is a “soft” authoritarian regime. Features of an autocracy as stated by Purcell (1973), include three distinct characteristics. There are, “limited political pluralism, low subject mobilization and patrimonial rulership”(Purcell, 1973, p46). Limited political pluralism refers to “interest groups being tied to and dependent upon the regime” (Purcell, 1973, p30). Low subject mobilization refers to “ citizens being mobilized only on a temporary basis to endorse decisions and demonstrate support, as generally the regime does not encourage participation (Purcell, 1973, p30)”. Finally, patrimonial ruler ship refers to a particular style of leadership, whereby “the leader gives privileges to a select portion of the ruled, and in return the recipients acknowledge the authority of the ruler” (Purcell 1973, p30).

Therefore in Singapore, it could be difficult to implement features of anticipatory leadership, as they go against the features of an autocracy. For example, for anticipatory leadership to work successfully, leaders must engage in dialogue both internally and externally, and be stay updated by using several sources who feed them information on current trends (Purcell, 1973). In an autocracy, there is limited political pluralism, meaning that most groups are in some way linked to the ruling party and therefore the information being received is from one perspective. This can be compared to a democracy, where leaders are meeting several groups from opposing parties and pressure groups and therefore receiving a variety of sources of information. This would increase the leaders foresight of current affairs, and help to increase their ability to successfully sense make. Therefore one could presume that Singapore is less likely to display sense making than the United Kingdom.

(20)

H1a: Sense making occurs less frequently in Singapore than in the United Kingdom 2.3.2 Boin et al’s leadership task of decision making and coordinating

The concept of decision making and coordinating is defined by Boin et al (2016) as, “making crucial calls on strategic dilemmas and orchestrating coherent responses to implement those decisions” (p15). This is described further as effective response throughout the response network at national, regional and international levels. Moreover, the leader should show signs of effectively responding to information and implementing decisions at the right time ( Boin et al, 2016). Furthermore, Boin et al ( 2016) mention that the role of leaders in the task of decision making and coordinating is not as “all-powerful decision makers but rather as designers, facilitators, and guardians of an institutional arrangement, that produces effective decision-making and coordination processes” (p64). In this way, a leaders main task is not necessarily to make fast decisions but coordinated well-informed decisions, which do not impair the legitimacy of the framework or system in place (Boin et al, 2016).

The task of decision- making and coordinating is mentioned throughout all the existing typologies explored. Kapucu and Van Wart (2006) mention the tasks of “implementing flexible decision-making and expanding coordination and goodwill” ( p297). Furthermore, Kapucu and Van Wart (2008) mention the tasks of “decision making and planning and organizing” (p76) and Boin et al (2013) mention “making critical decisions and orchestrating vertical and horizontal coordination” (p82). This highlights that decision- making is considered a key task for leaders during a crisis across the existing literature analysed.

When considering the prevalence of decision-making within both Singapore and the United Kingdom, the bureaucratic features, which were mentioned in chapter 2.1, could help in offering explanations. As discussed, Singapore is considered a soft authoritarian regime. Purcell (1973) suggests all authoritarian regimes have three distinct characteristics of “limited political pluralism, low subject mobilization and patrimonial rulership”(p46). These features result in considerable freedom within the decision making process for the leader. Due to limited political pluralism, there is also limited need for coordination amongst political groups within the democratic system, allowing for more efficient decision-making. However, it could also be argued that this could result in poor decision making, as the ruling party faces no

(21)

opposition, and therefore no-one can question the decisions being made, whether they are right or wrong for the country.

When comparing these three characteristics to the United Kingdom, it is a democracy. Therefore, pluralism would be expected to be higher as pressure groups are more independent, and do not rely on the government in power for their survival (Purcell, 1973, p30). Mobilization would be expected to be higher, as participation is a choice of the individual. Moreover, instead of patrimonial leadership, legal rulership would be expected to be most present, as “the individual who occupies an office is subject to the rules governing the exercise of that office” (Purcell, 1973, p31). This process would result in a much more organic system of decision making, whereby legitimate processes are in place, as decisions are both challenged and scrutinized by pressure groups and opposition parties. This could result in decision-making being more prevalent and effective in the United Kingdom than in Singapore. However , it could also be argued, that due to the various democratic features in place, decision making is a much slower process and therefore less effective than that of Singapore.

Therefore two opposing hypothesis can be derived:

H2a: Decision making and coordinating occurs more frequently in Singapore than in the United Kingdom

H2b: Decision- making and coordinating occurs more frequently in the United Kingdom than in Singapore

2.3.3 Boin et al’s leadership task of meaning making

The concept of meaning making, is defined by Boin et al (2016) as “offering a situational definition and narrative that is convincing, helpful and inspiring to citizens and responders”(p15). Boin et al ( 2016), go further in explaining that the category of meaning making concerns how a leader communicates with his followers. More concretely, the capacity of the leader to influence the public and the medias understanding of the crisis, meaning they fully understand the causes consequences and cures of the crisis (Boin et al, 2016). This account must be authoritative, accurate and believable, resulting in credibility; reputation and trustworthiness of the leader. Boin et al (2016), suggest that crisis communication in the form of meaning making “makes a crucial difference between obtaining or loosing the “premising consensus”

(22)

(p70). This is to say, that if leaders fail to effectively communicate their message to the public, other parties, such as the media, may persuade the public against the leaders decisions (Boin et al, 2016, p76). This damages the leaders credibility, which is the “most important factor, which determines effectiveness” (Boin et al, 2016, p78). In this way meaning making is central to building public support for policies.

Furthermore, compassion and empathy must be displayed by the leader towards his followers. Alongside this, the use of framing rituals and masking. Framing is defined as “ a strong rhetoric, full of metaphors and emotive concepts ” (Boin et al, 2016, p82) alongside “selective exploitation of data to frame a crisis” (Boin et al, 2016, p82). Furthermore, rituals are defined as “symbolic behaviours, which are socially standardized” (Boin et al, 2016, p85). They consist of acknowledgement and compassion by leaders for the electorate and are incredibly important in gaining the trust of the electorate. An example of a crisis ritual would be a leader “inspecting relevant sites and visiting affected victims” (Boin et al, 2016, p85) after a crisis. Finally, masking is defined as leaders “not telling the true story and downplaying the seriousness of threats and damages” (Boin et al, 2016, p87). Examples of masking would be governments downplaying major events, such as environmental disasters or terrorist attacks. It must be noted that Boin et al (2016) suggest that masking is often prevalent within authoritarian regimes (p88).

The task of meaning making, has also been considered by Helsloot and Groenendaal (2017). They consider it to be the “the single most significant determinant of leadership perceptions during flash crises” (p350). They go as far as to suggest, that the other four tasks proposed by Boin et al (2016) are not relevant if meaning making is successfully implemented. This results in leaders being perceived by the media and public as competent decision makers (Helsloot and Groenendaal, 2017, p350).

One aspect of meaning making, which has also been explored within leadership in crisis literature is that of charismatic leadership. Charismatic leadership is defined as “an interaction between leaders and followers that results in a strong internalization and commitment by followers of the leaders values and goals and willingness of followers to transcend their self - interest for the sake of the collective” (House and Shamir, 1992, p86). Boin et al (2016) mention that within meaning making, it is important to influence the publics understanding of the crisis, show compassion, build

(23)

credibility and trustworthiness, alongside showcasing language and behaviours such as framing, rituals, and masking (Boin et al, 2016). These are all tasks, which require the individual characteristics and traits of a leader to influence followers, which is also in line with the theory of charismatic leadership.

The prevalence of charismatic leadership is shown to increase during a crisis situation (Bligh et al, 2004 and Davis and Gardner, 2012). This results in followers perceptions of the leaders effectiveness increasing compared to pre crisis levels (Blight et al, 2004). However it is important to note that when charismatic leadership is applied to several crisis events consecutively, it begins to loose its effectiveness David and Gardner (2012) as it results in a numbing effect on followers (David and Gardner, 2012). This highlights that a crisis can both enhance and limit perceptions of a leader through the use of charismatic leadership and meaning making depending on follower’s perceptions of the leaders ability to successfully handle the crisis (Pillai 2013). Meaning making is an incredibly important aspect of leadership, as leaders must convince followers of their leadership skills to effectively handle the crisis, without the support of the public it will become increasingly challenging to effectively handle a crisis. From this it can be derived that:

H3a: meaning making will be the most prevalent task in both Singapore and the United Kingdom

Bureaucratic features could also offer further explanations for the presence of meaning making in both Singapore and the United Kingdom. Democratic theory explains that political power is granted to officials by the people, individuals should be regarded as inherently equal and officials should be held accountable (Shapiro, 2009). In Singapore, there is a lack of freedom, legitimacy and transparency within the authoritarian regime and electoral process. This results in officials not being held to account, individuals not granting political power to officials or being regarded as inherently equal. Leaders do not need to explain their actions or gain the trust of the electorate and moreover, the electoral process can be tampered with. In this way meaning making could be impacted, as meaning making requires that leaders effectively communicate with their electorate and display features such as empathy and charisma towards their electorate. This is not possible if leaders are withholding information and not transparent with the public about their decisions and their

(24)

consequences. This can be compared to the United Kingdom, where all decisions must be transparent, the electoral process consists of legitimacy and transparency and the public are allowed to demonstrate and express their opinion. Therefore it could be assumed that:

H3b: meaning making is less likely to occur in Singapore than in the United Kingdom

(25)

Chapter 3 Research Methods

3.1 Type of research

This research aims to test Boin et al’s theory and generate new theory of the five proposed leadership tasks, “as once a theory has been generated and developed it needs to be tested to prove its worth” (Toshkov, 2016, p39). The importance of theory testing is built upon falsifications and logical positivism (Toshkov, 2016). Theory testing follows deductive logic, meaning that “ it starts with abstract propositions and puts them to the test of empirical reality” (Toshkov, 2016, p39). If the theory does not survive the test, it is discarded (Toshkov, 2016).

Furthermore, the research will be small N comparative research. Small N comparison designs aim to “inductively derive theories and retrospectively account for outcomes” (Toshkov, 2016, p258). They do not have an approach to causation but combine the strategies of large N designs with the approach of within- case analysis (Toshkov, 2016, p258). Small N comparative research for theory testing “works by isolating the supposed causal relationship from other possible competing influences” (Toshkov, 2016, p260).

The design of small N comparative research concerns “the selection of cases to study or variable to observe” (Toshkov, 2016, p262). A most similar systems design approach will be used whereby it focuses on a small set of hypothesized casual relationships whilst making sure there is variation in the main explanatory variable, while the values of all other possibly relevant variables remain constant across the selected cases (Toshkov, 2016, p262). The limitations of Small N research designs are that they are not suitable for weak and heterogeneous causal relationships (Toshkov, 2016, p259).

3.2 Case selection

The cases of Singapore and the United Kingdom were chosen due to numerous similarities such as economic factors, healthcare systems and development as outlined above in Figure 1. However they also have distinct bureaucratic differences such as recruitment systems, electoral processes and freedoms within both countries. Furthermore, their response to the corona virus crisis also differs.

(26)

3.2.1 The corona virus in Singapore

Singapore was one of the first countries to be affected by the corona virus, despite this the countries response was one of the most efficient internationally, allowing them to better contain the virus (WHO, 2020). Singapore already had a pandemic response plan in place due to their experience with SARS in 2003, which significantly impacted their response system (WHO, 2020). Although the country did not initially go into full lockdown, they did take extremely strong measures to combat the virus. After the first case was confirmed on the 23rd

of January, temperature checks were put in place at airports, schools and building entrances (Strait Times, 2020). All citizens showing symptoms were tested. Moreover, a tracking system was implemented whereby the government traced everyone that was newly infected or had been in contact with an infected person. They were one of the first countries to impose restrictions on travel from China and later internationally. The country designated separate hospitals for those who contracted the corona virus and the rest of the population. Moreover for those with symptoms who were instructed to stay at home, strict quarantine measures were implemented. Government software was installed on the phones of infected patients to check their location, for those not abiding by the rules, repercussions were severe, such as revocation of citizenship (World Economic Forum, 2020). The country also later went into full lockdown on the 1 April closing all non-essential businesses and schools. Singapore was very well equipped and had all necessary resources in place to tackle the virus in its first stage.

Unfortunately, in late April, Singapore experienced a second peak of the virus, and the number of cases grew rapidly, especially amongst the nations migrant workers (Beaumont, 2020). These workers live in dorms where social distancing is impossible. The country had to extend lockdown measures, as they were struggling to contain the virus. On March 15 the country had 200 infections compared to the 21st_{of April} where the country has 3000 infected cases (The Guardian, 2020).

3.2.2 The corona virus in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom in contrast, had an incredibly slow response to the corona virus. The first case was on the 29th_{of February (BBC, 2020). Herd immunity theory was} implemented, which proposed that the virus should spread naturally and the population would build immunity, with no extra precautionary procedures necessary.

(27)

This was met with harsh criticism, as the government would be accepting the death of several members of the population without implementing precautionary measures. Consequently at the end of March, stricter measures were implemented. These included the closure of schools, universities, childcare and all non- essential businesses. The government issued a statement requesting that citizens should comply with social distancing, only leaving their houses for basic necessities such as, exercise (which should be limited to once per day), medical needs and travelling to and from work if necessary (United Kingdom Government, 2020). Moreover, the UK’s approach to testing for the virus has been limited to only those showing severe symptoms. The government issued advice which stated that anyone experiencing viral symptoms should self isolate and stay at home for 14 days, if the symptoms left then they would be free to stop their self isolation and if symptoms worsened then only should they contact medical professionals and seek advice (United Kingdom Government, 2020). The UK had a limited number of tests, and were ill equipped with medical equipment for patients and protective clothing for doctors; this paired with their slow response resulted in a large increase in numbers of people affected with the virus.

3. 3 Method of data collection

This research aims to test Boin et al’s (2016) leadership during crisis theory. Data will be collected through Prime Ministers speeches. All official speeches by the Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Long, regarding the corona virus from February 2020 to April 2020 will be analysed. Speeches will include addresses to the public and press conferences. This period has been chosen, as this was when speeches from both countries Prime Ministers, regarding the corona virus, first began. April was chosen as the end date as within this period both countries had already set their responses to the corona virus and were in the middle stage of the crisis.

3.4 Method of Analysis

Speeches will be analysed using a typology based on three of the tasks proposed within Boin et al’s (2016) five strategic leadership tasks. These include sense making, decision making and coordinating and meaning making (p15). These tasks were

(28)

chosen, as they encompass the beginning and middle stage of the crisis. The tasks of accounting and learning have not been included within this typology, as the crisis is still ongoing and these tasks are only relevant to the end of a crisis. Results of these categories would therefore be skewed or inaccurate.

3.4.1 Sense making

The category of sense making is described by Boin et al (2016) as “collecting and processing information that will help crisis managers to detect an emerging crisis and understand the significance of what is going on during a crisis” (p15). This will be operationalized, to mean pre-emptive actions or foresight by the leader. Within the speeches, this will consist of the researcher searching for examples of the leader discussing his future steps, thinking ahead and speaking to advisors about future steps. Moreover, the researcher will be looking for awareness by the leader of the situation within other countries and whether the leader is discussing future steps with his advisors. Examples of this within the speeches analysed could include, the leader notifying the public about his next steps , to effectively combat the corona virus. Furthermore, any mention of future actions, which will be implemented to prevent further spread or keep citizens safe. It could also be the mention of the situation within other countries, or the advice that specific bodies have given the leader regarding the future. It is important to note that this category will only be concerning decisions or actions regarding the future. A list of indicators used for this concept are highlighted in Figure 4, examples include: Does the Prime Minister mention speaking to advisors about future decisions? Does the Prime Minister discuss steps that my be taken in the future? Does the Prime Minister discuss possible future scenarios?

3.4.2 Decision making and coordinating

The category of decision making and coordinating, is described by Boin et al (2016) as “making crucial calls on strategic dilemmas and orchestrating coherent responses to implement those decisions” (p15). This will be operationalized to mean clear implementation of decisions and cohesive coordination with governmental, non-governmental and supranational institutions on current decisions. Within the

(29)

speeches, this will consist of the researcher looking for examples of the leader implementing and alerting the public of current decisions, which he has made. A list of indicators used for this concept are highlighted in figure 4, examples include: Does the leader clearly respond and implement decisions? And does the leader coordinate with various bodies.

3.4.3 Meaning making

Meaning making is described by Boin et al (2016) as “offering a situational definition and narrative that is convincing, helpful and inspiring to citizens and responders” ( p 15). This will be operationalized to mean effective communication with the public and gaining trust of the public. This category will consist of the researcher looking for evidence within the speeches of the leader explaining and describing measures clearly, to the public. Alongside this, explaining decisions so the electorate is clearly able to understand his steps. Moreover, the researcher will be searching for phrases, which display compassion and empathy towards the electorate for the current situation. Furthermore, evidence of the leader building an authoritative account of the situation, creating trust and credibility for himself amongst the electorate ( Boin et al, 2016). Moreover, the researcher will be looking for the use of framing, rituals and masking. A list of indicators used for this concept are highlighted in Figure 4, examples include: Does the prime minister effectively communicate the crisis to individuals? Does the prime minister explain the measures implemented. Does the leader provide an accurate account of the crisis, building credibility and trust? Does the leader use framing, rituals and masking?

Coding will be used to identify the indicators of sense making, decision making and coordinating and meaning making within the document, which are highlighted in Figure 4 and were explained above. Kelle (1997) mentions, that “coding is the necessary prerequisite for a systematic comparison of text passages which are retrieved and analysed in order to discover dimensions which can be used as a basis for comparing different cases” (p58). Figure 4 highlights Boin et al’s five strategic tasks and the typology derived from it, alongside the various codes which will be used.

(30)

Table 3: Typology created from Boin et al’s (2016) leadership theory Boin’s Five Strategic Tasks and definitions Stage of the crisis Elaboration of task in text, key points to remember.

Indicators which will be searched for in the document

Sense making “ Collecting and processing information that will help crisis managers to detect an emerging crisis and understand the significance of what is going on during a crisis”

Pre crisis - The warning signals before a crisis hits - Acting on

information and not waiting for the consequences of the crisis before acting - Listening to predictions and information from scientists about the crisis

- Process and share information under stressful and uncertain conditions - Have a well – rehearsed method in place to

process and share information

- Does the leader talk about what he/she will do next

- Does leader mention pre-emptive actions/

- Does the leader state procedures - Leader is thinking ahead

- Does the leader

- Does the leader have awareness of what’s happening in other countries

- Speaking to advisors about what may happen in the future - Does discuss the methods in

place to deal with the upcoming threats Decision making and coordinating “ Making crucial calls on strategic dilemmas and orchestrating coherent response to implement those decisions” During the crisis - Effective coordination throughout the response network: - Response at all levels which include regional national and International. - Selective response decisions implemented at the right time - Responding to

information and making and

- Does the leader clearly respond and implement

decisions and actions

- Does the leader coordinate with governmental,

non-governmental and supranational institutions on current decisions ( not future as this is sense making)

(31)

implementing key decisions Meaning making “Offering a situational definition and narrative that is convincing, helpful and inspiring to citizens and responders” During the crisis - Effective crisis communication: - Attempts to influence the publics and medias understanding of the crisis.

- Able to get their

message across about the causes, consequences and cures of the crisis to the public and media - The initial response sets the tone of the crisis - Creates a believable and authoritative account which promises a way out of the crisis - Builds credibility, reputation and trustworthiness by presenting accurate information - 3 factors for determining effective governmental crisis communication efforts: - Degree of preparedness - Degree of coordination of outgoing information - Degree of professionalization - Was the crisis played down by the leader - Was compassion present towards citizens, did they show empathy and promise money or lack of it

- Use of framing: strong rhetoric full of

metaphors and emotive concepts

- Use of rituals:

symbolic behavior that is socially standardized and repetitive, often through acts of public

- Does the leader effectively communicate the crisis to citizens

- Does the leader explain the measures implemented - Does the leader provide an

accurate account of the crisis to citizens, building credibility reputation and trustworthiness - Is empathy and compassion

shown by the leader for citizens - Does the leader use framing - Does the leader use rituals - Does the leader use masking

(32)

(Boin et al, 2016)

3.5 Validity and reliability of data collected 3.5.1 Internal validity

Internal validity is high within this research as leadership is measured along three competencies and across two stages of the crisis, providing a thorough in depth assessment of effective leadership. Moreover, the data collected is from prime ministers speeches, which are the most direct evidence of a prime ministers leadership style. These sources can of course display some level of bias as government’s may promote their own interests and their own agenda through formal speeches. Furthermore, documents have been chosen within a specific time frame, from the

compassion. For example inspecting relevant sites and visit victims and operational staff

- Use of masking: not telling the full story, downplaying the seriousness of threats and damages Accounting “Explaining in a public forum what was done to prevent and manage the crisis and why”

End crisis - Termination and accountability - Who is responsible for the crisis - Blame game of different organisations

- This will not be used within the typology Learning “Determining the causes of a crisis, assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the responses to it and undertaking remedial action based on this understanding”

End crisis - What has been learnt

- What went wrong and what went right - What will be

different for next time

- What works and what has worked

- This will not be used within the typology

(33)

beginning of February to the end of April in the year 2020, this enhances validity, as documents have not been selected at random.

3.5.2 External validity

As this thesis is an explanatory study, the external validity of the research is low, as it cannot be generalised or applied to all contexts. Another factor, which makes the validity low, is that Singapore has a limited amount of prime minister speeches compared to the United Kingdom. Moreover, as the crisis is still on going the external validity as the results of this paper may change by the end of the crisis.

How do leadership responses differ during a crisis: comparing the United Kingdom and Singapore on key dimensions of leadership, during crisis management

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs

Master Thesis Public Administration